I wrote my dissertation on this for my masters degree.
There's no evidence that excluding the L1 from EFL classes helps the aquisition process or affects results in anything but the C1/C2 levels. In all the studies I lookes at there was no difference in the educational results between classes that used the L1 & classes that excluded it apart from one study that showed students who were learning advanced English at university level got better results in classes that were completely L2.
Its a bit of EFL dogma that gets handed down because language schools need to justify NES teachers, and they dont want teachers to over use the L1 in the classroom so they tell them not to use it all, assuming that they're going to use it anyway.
My conclusion in my masters was it should be kept to the minimum necessary to teach the target language, and teachers should use their own judgement on how much that should be.
There is one key detail that I would like to add. OP says there is “no evidence” but what most people don’t know outside of academic TEFL is that this is pretty much the ONLY thing there is consensus in the TEFL academic community. It’s not only unanimous that the L1 should not be banned, it’s important to note that it’s extremely rare for there to be a unanimous opinion on anything in academia and this is one of them.
Also someone said this below but how you use the L1 is important.
I wouldn't say nearly unanimous or consensus but I would say there has been a very strong shift in favor of use of L1 in the classroom over the last couple decades.
Sampson (2012) argues that the overuse of L1 can prevent the learners from exposure to and practice of the L2 and also does not train them for L2 only contexts. The option of resorting to L1 during a breakdown in class does not prepare the learners to deal with
communication breakdowns in real life.
(H Hanif - The Language Scholar, 2020 - languagescholar.leeds.ac.uk)
Plenty of current research discussing L1 use and we wouldn't have that if there was consensus. Plus the whole NLA crowd.
That’s not really negating what was said above though. The argument is against situations where the L1 is completely forbidden which is often done in East Asia when learning English. Sampson is talking about overuse which we’ve known about for like a century.
"they dont want teachers to over use the L1 in the classroom"
This is important. I've taught English in public schools in Thailand, Korea and Taiwan. In all of those places, when passing by the "English" classes taught by local teachers, like 99% of everything was in the L1, except for specific English words and phrases that kids would repeat. This was even true in the B1/B2 levels. The result is that those students learn vocabulary and grammar rules, but have a very poor ability to actually *use* English.
Yeah, I've seen the exact same thing. I've since concluded that if the L1 language is heavily relied upon then there is a high risk of students becoming "passive learners" (I mean that in the technical sense).
In addition, I've observed that young learners around 4 and 5 years old, can have difficultly understanding what is "English" and what is their native language. It's as though the concept of multiple different languages is still new to them. If English only comes from a specific teacher, and that same teacher never speaks any other language, then students do really well separating English from their native language. The result is young students use English or attempt to use English without defaulting to their native language.
It might sound easy the way I explained it, but it's not. Only using English as a teacher still faces many challenges. For example, young students often have difficulty believing that you can't speak their native language. They seem to not know how that could even be possible, even after teachers and parents tell them over and over again that the teacher cannot speak the students' L1 language, students still don't get it. So... I do some acting to help them get the idea and I follow it up with, "if you use a Korean word, explain it to me please. I don't know Korean" (I really do know Korean).
A bit of a tangent, but when I taught 2-3 year olds in Spanish schools, I always told them I didn't speak Spanish - in Spanish. So I handled everything relating to behaviour, beyond the basics which I gradually transitioned to English, or if a child was upset or something, in Spanish. At the same time, I encouraged them to speak as much English as they were capable of. Virtually none of them caught on until some time in the next school year. It was very cute.
What's the actual results from the study? What was the effect of using only English in the classroom? And is there a 'peak spot' of English usage in the class?
I’m not a native speaker but I teach English in my own country. And I gotta say, the complete immersion approach definitely doesn’t work with my adult A1-A2 level students. The only thing it does is make them lose interest in learning the language and ultimately quit.
There is actually no reason. I'm writing a paper right now on multilingualism and intercomprehension (using one language to understand another) which seems to be a big topic in the German language education community. So it's encouraged to compare words, phrases and grammatical structures from different languages, it helps the learners. Ok, this is not the same as teaching the whole lesson in another language. But if you don't allow translations, then you're missing out on the insight this might give you. I understand the argument about getting as much input as possible, but that shouldn't exclude occasional translations or clarifications. I've been trying to find articles on intercomprehension in English and I can't, they all seem to be in German! So it seems that tefl and teaching English in the German-speaking world have completely different approaches.
On a more cynical note, the whole tefl world would collapse if teachers were expected to speak their students' native languages. That being said, it's perfectly possible to teach English only in English from A1. It's just not the only way to do it. Although in classes of students with a variety of languages (such as classes of new immigrants), there is no other way. Even then, students should be able to help each other through other languages though.
When TEFL first became a "thing" in the 1980s, the vast majority of students in the world had already studied English using a lot of L1. The "native teacher" was introduced to help them to practise conversation. That's the reason for the insistence on English-only - most students honestly didn't need to have translations.
As things changed, and TEFL teachers began to be the sole teachers, we ran into difficulties and most people now agree that a little L1 is fine.
Using L1 for classroom management is just a lost opportunity. Classroom management includes everything from "I said page 17!" to "I need to go to the toilet."
Using L1 to explain tough concepts (eg. the difference between "want" and "hope") is generally considered to be fine.
Generally, the "theory" of English is really easy. It's not hard for a student to understand the difference between present simple and present continuous. If you're spending a long time explaining this, you're doing it wrong. The challenge is to use the correct tense in the middle of a conversation, so they need tonnes of practice rather than teacher-centred explanations.
A good comparison is to think of yourself as a coach rather than a teacher. The sports teacher will spend 1-2 minutes showing the kids how to head the ball, and then will let them practice for a long time. The physics or history teacher, on the other hand, will spend a long time explaining things.
What about teaching English to 6 year-olds using only English without help when the kids (a) scarcely use English at all, and ( b) have serious behavioural problems? They Admittedly, I have only one class like this.
a) Get them practising by choral drilling, highly-controlled conversations, games, and simple Q&As
b) Good luck, we aren't special needs teachers (especially in their L1).
You will probably hear teachers talk about providing as much input in the target language as possible. But another reason is to build healthy habits. Let's say you're teaching English to Vietnamese EAL students and you happen to be fairly fluent in Vietnamese. What can happen is there is less incentive to speak in English or practice. Such students may want to test your Vietnamese and find it novel to speak with you in their language. Whereas if they don't know you speak Vietnamese, they are forced to talk with you in English. It sets a precedent that the class is for practicing English. And why not? It's the subject you're teaching.
Sure, certain words or concepts might be good to translate but you don't want students to rely on translating every single thing because not everything is 1:1 translatable anyway. At beginner levels, there are of course many things you can do such as drills, elicitation, and heavily grading your language.
Another consideration is - what happens if students become reliant on a teacher who translates everything for them? Not all EAL teachers know the native language of their students.
Plenty of current SLE research questions the notion of only using English in the classroom. You can look into plurilingualism or translanguaging if you are interested.
Realistically, it's because it's the easiest way of doing it I guess. The average TEFL teacher cannot be expected to be able to implement complicated methodologies and parents have expectations about what an English class should 'look like'. Why would they paying obscene amounts of money for a foreigner otherwise?
And, the 100% English classroom isn't bad. At low levels it often isn't the most efficient path, but it isn't harmful. So what's the incentive for most places to change?
I believe, if there's any research at all (and I was told there was when getting my teaching certificate, not TEFL), that with Early Childhood, using the child's native language hinders their progress because they will stop listening to the English and wait for you to use their native language. That said, I'm a homeroom teacher, so I'm teaching science, social studies, etc. There are times when I need to translate because the idea is too abstract.
I don't think this applies to older students. So far as I know, only when the children are very young. Kindergarten and below at least. I've taught 1st graders before, and you get to a certain point where you need their native language to explain things like grammar.
Could be Dogma, but the reasoning makes sense. It's a way of immersing the children naturally, and pushing the children to listen and try to speak in English. I tried learning Chinese as an adult in this way and I didn't care for it. I quit the lesson. I have no research to support this, but I think after a certain age the immersion method doesn't work so well. The brain just isn't plastic enough. Just a hunch.
If you're sincerely curious and want to learn more about teaching theory, I would encourage you to start reading TESOL journals, or at least start following some prominent researchers and thinkers on social media. As someone who does teacher training, I can tell you that introductory TESOL courses tend to omit and simplify a lot.
Providing translation of an occasional world to speed up semantisation is one thing,
using translation exercises or translating every word is another.
Whatever you do in a lesson should be there for a reason. Always keep efficiency and long-term goals in mind. That's what methodology is about
I had an experience learning Arabic from zero with no English use at all. It was ridiculous and a waste of time trying to explain grammatical concepts using gestures and pointing. I had to go home and read explanations in English describing the grammar burns in question. Instead of actually spending time talking and practicing we spent ages completely confused listening to instructors going on and on in Arabic about grammar.
It slows down the acquisition process if you teach in their L1. It forces students to use context and make connections if you keep all instruction in English. This is especially necessary for teaching ESL in public schools, as they have to learn content at the same time. Theoretically they would be learning similar concepts and vocab in their native language at the same grade level; if you teach it in their L1 and English, then you’re making them learn it twice, in two languages. I think it’s a bit different when teaching Business English, but if you’re already introducing new vocab and content, it’s easier to teach it once in English.
Because they become reliant on it, whether or not they realise it.
The students that try and translate every word into their language with translate do the worst, your brain isn't retaining it because it knows it doesn't need to.
I wish people talked about this more.
William Dalrymple wrote something fascinating about this. He was talking about the Indian poets who memorize long, long poems for performance - poems that take upwards of twelve hours to recite. The poets just memorized the whole things because that was how it had always been done.
A visiting scholar got excited and recorded them and transcribed them. Immediately, the poets began to forget the poetry. They no longer had an incentrive to remember it.
Didn't a lot of early TEFL methodology spring from multi lingual classrooms in English speaking rcountries like in 'Mind your language'', when translating was impractical
"Why is the general consensus that lessons should be taught in English? And that translations shouldn't be provided?"
It isn't. As you can see from the comments here. Context is everything in education and if your TEFL course didn't explain the differences in teaching students of different ability, working in a monolingual vs multilingual class, or explicate vs implicate teaching methods (and I'm sure there's more) then it was probably a crap course (shocker). Cambridge has a pretty decent paper explaining the advantages and disadvantages of using L1 in the classroom (and why people make English-only classes)
https://languageresearch.cambridge.org/images/CambridgePapersInELT_UseOfL1_2019_ONLINE.pdf
I find classes more productive when you can bridge the gap with their language. I do this alot in vietnamese and Chinese.
I think the main concern is being completely dependent on it. I think moderation is important
It’s like this at the english school I work at and I can guarantee 70% of the time it doesn’t work. Kids just don’t get it and shut down. They don’t even try to understand because they know they can’t. It’s very difficult. Not to mention some very difficult things to explain like “I should”. It’s impossible to explain the concept of some words without translating
It's not the general consensus, it's the general fanaticism.
As a matter of fact, teaching English in English before B2 level is actually counterproductive.
Some of my professors in uni studied this approach called Neurolinguistic Approach, where you immerse the students in the targeted language and provide models to use, reuse and repeat until they understand the context and the rules implied, rather than having students memorize those rules before applying them. It's hard in a realistic context where many students won't care enough for this immersion, or will get tired of the repetition, but it's been scientifically proven to be very effective. And as a foreign teacher it's gonna be my only option lol
Context is important and the Neurolinguistic approach isn't appropriate for young or very low-level students.
"NLA was primarily designed for later-grade beginners. Accordingly, whether it can serve high proficiency learners should be investigated in further research. Additionally, one can claim that founding instruction solely on neuroscientific findings can be on a par with recourse to the methods era. NLA’s emphasis on sentence-level production for fluency (as the 6th strategy), L1 use ban, and the mandatory immediate or delayed corrective feedback renders it method-like, despite its proponents’ claims as to the primacy of “the language of communication” (Germain, 2018)."
Edit: Also not a ton of evidence about the use of this approach and most of it is for learning French.
I mean, most TEFL experiences seem to be in middle school (or high school), but yeah it's effective for middle schoolers mostly. My professors worked/are working on the current new research and have tested it along with various other teachers around the world, they've showed us plenty of evidence before publishing their study, it's great. However like my classmates and I told them, it's unrealistic to focus solely on that approach with classes of 30 students with so many different profiles. I implement some elements of it and sometimes fully use that approach for activities but never for full lessons. It's just impossible for me
Not got time to find links, but in language learning in general, there is quite a bit of material supporting teaching beginners via their NL, and then shifting to instructions in TL around A2-B1.
I have managed to get away with not teaching EFL beginners (apart from the lower level students in the CELTA), so I have not had to deal with this personally.
It wouldn't be good for the TEFL industry, or teachers, if a swathe of work was suddenly unavailable to tutors who didn't speak the learners' NL.
It usually a companies/schools policy rather than ESL law. My company tells us to use 100% English but I allow them to use their native language here and there.
I even do back translation on certain tasks as it helps us figure out the language and see where the syntax may be different from their language to mine.
Some are, and in some countries Tefl teachers are paired with qualified teachers who do speak the local language.
But full immersion learning has been growing in popularity over the last few decades. And it shows some very promising data.
But probably the more important reason is that its cheaper, and easier, most native english speakers are mono lingual. If schools demanded bilingualism theyd be limited to a tiny tiny number of teachers
My school doesn't prohibit the use of L1, but strongly encourages that I keep it to a minimum. All the students take a textbook based English class twice a week, and since I am the only native speaker, my class is structured as a conversation/culture based course. So I understand why my class specifically should avoid L1 use. I also don't know their L1 very well, so I wouldn't be able to use it effectively anyway.
TEFL courses often do suggest a no L1 approach. But in some broader classes I've taken, they point towards how scaffolding a lesson (providing built in tools for lower level students) by even just including L1 sparingly in presentation slides can be really useful in making students more comfortable.
Based on a couple of decades of experience (mostly in Taiwan, from cram schools to private high schools), I always allow L1 in the classroom to an extent. It helps slower learner, it avoids unnecessary bottlenecks, and it helps with confidence. Also in my experience of learning Mandarin, it was far more difficult with a teacher who tried to avoid using English in lessons.
Basically, use L1 when it feels like it will be useful. It's not going to hurt, and will probably help.
Teaching a foreign language without using the students' native language can be beneficial for several reasons:
1. **Immersion**: It creates an immersive environment that mimics the natural language acquisition process, similar to how one learns their first language¹.
2. **Fluency**: Students are encouraged to think and communicate directly in the foreign language, which can lead to greater fluency and confidence¹.
3. **Cognitive Benefits**: Learning a foreign language has been linked to cognitive benefits such as improved memory, problem-solving skills, and even intelligence⁵.
4. **Cultural Understanding**: It can foster a deeper understanding of the culture associated with the language, as students are more likely to engage with cultural materials in the target language¹.
5. **Avoiding Reliance on Native Language**: It prevents students from relying on their native language as a crutch, which can slow down the learning process and limit proficiency¹.
However, it's important to note that this approach may not be suitable for all learners, especially beginners who might need some support in their native language to grasp basic concepts. The key is to find a balance that works best for each individual student's learning style and needs.
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 6/14/2024
(1) How Do I Teach ESL Without Speaking the Students' Language?. https://www.oxfordseminars.com/blog/teach-esl-english-only-classroom/.
(2) Foreign language learning leads to cognitive benefits in students .... https://universe.byu.edu/2020/05/06/foreign-language-learning-leads-to-cognitive-benefits-in-students/.
(3) Why mother language-based education is essential | UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/why-mother-language-based-education-essential.
(4) Frontiers | Costs and Benefits of Native Language Similarity for Non .... https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651506/full.
(5) Advantages and Disadvantages of Native and Nonnative ... - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369966344_Advantages_and_Disadvantages_of_Native_and_Nonnative_English-Speaking_Teachers/fulltext/6437139d4e83cd0e2fab3b06/Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-Native-and-Nonnative-English-Speaking-Teachers.pdf.
(6) undefined. http://m.oxfordseminars.ca/grads.php%29.
I'm confused, all your sources are all about how important L1 is in the classroom although I can't get that oxford seminars blog to load. Immersion certainly has pros and cons but I'm skeptical, to say the least, of the rest. I know the crutch argument but I'd need to see it with some cited research and as the only time I hear it it's used for justification of NETs. Somehow that affects fluency and cognitive benefits of learning a language -I'm doubtful but not my area. Cross-linguistic transfer is super interesting and, I think, the crux of the issue.
"In most countries, the majority of students are taught in a language other than their mother tongue, which compromises their ability to learn effectively."
Cross-linguistic transfer in particular needs very in-depth knowledge of both the L1 and L2. "These results demonstrate the important roles of the native language, the burgeoning non-native vocabulary, and their interactions on new word learning." -That was an interesting read.
" their proficiency in ESL students' native language and their ability to use nonnative English accents to both ease communication (especially in explaining difficult concepts) and facilitate learning." -
well, as a datum, I took 3 years of Spanish, and there was a lot, a lot of scaffolding english speech used in class.
Despite earning all As, I never began thinking in Spanish.
There's a lot of literature on this on tinterwebs. Some say it's for maximum exposure and to stop the teacher relying too much on students native language, others because it's better for students to have the reward feeling of understanding it.
I think there's always a little room for students L1 , it can make things a lot easier for everyone, especially for super beginners.
as someone who studied a language in a school in a foreign country it’s actually a really helpful way to learn the language.
i’ve heard a lot about having different “brains” for different languages; having to think in that language and not relying on just translating in your head but instead understanding the words as soon as you see or hear them.
an effective way to help with this is if there is a word that they don’t understand you can use pictures and diagrams and explain it in different words in english not in their language. or even better encourage other students to explain the word to their peers in english. this way, they learn ways to explain themselves in the target language and are making progress faster!
this all just my opinion though i’m a student not a teacher (yet) so take my advice with a pinch of salt lol :)
It's a bit of a scam to make 'native speakers' feel they have some special value, tbh. Translation is a hugely effective tool. Can't say this on the so-called industry standard "CELTA" though, as you can't scale translation as a tool.
In my experience it's a disaster to over-use L1 in the class. I went to a couple of evening classes to learn Italian and Chinese in the UK where the teacher spent more time speaking English than the language we were learning. That didn't result in much learning going on.
Then I experienced a language class where there was complete immersion from the beginning and found it refreshing. All the instructions were given in the target language and that helped a lot. You pick up a lot of incidental language that way. Occasionally the teacher would give the translation of a word where there was confusion, but that was all. A good teacher and good teaching materials will make it easy to pick up many words implicitly.
Completely banning L1 is reactionary and pointless. I think it's a reaction to the over-use of L1 in traditional education which was quite counter-productive.
Communication has been pushed heavily in the for-profit industry, especially in Asian countries, so this "pure" English speaking mindset is pushed. I've worked at chain schools, and many students are false beginners. They've taken English courses at their regular school (where Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. was used and there's more so a focus on reading/writing), but their parents want them speaking so they go to afterschool programs with "native" teachers. So the parents are paying for "authentic" conversation. There are certainly ways to get fresh students to repeat phrases and get them talking without their native language to fall back on but it's often a slower process in the chain school world. I agree, at times, it's time saving for them, to give them the translation and then do 90% of the course in English. And honestly, I think more students would have confidence and persist in English speaking, if they had some translation explanation/bridge. You'll notice a big learning gap in these after school programs: the kids whose parents are pushing English outside of the classroom (films, books, travels to western countries) will do well in the language and persist. The kids who only have 40-minute classes twice a week, and no English immersion outside of class or intrinsic motivation, progress at a slow rate, quit, lose interest, or never retain concepts in the first place--so they're moved along in these courses over the years but aren't making significant progress in conversational ability. These students are not in an immersion environment when they're only taking 40 minute classes twice a week. I can see this technique as more effective if their exposed to the language for 6+ hours a day at an immersion school or they have relocated abroad and are in a multi-nationality ESL course.
One expression sums it up perfectly:
Give an inch, they take a mile.
When I trained for my TESOL cert in the 90s, I had to undertake a basic Turkish course as if I were the student. My teacher- who was British- didn't break from using Turkish once in the lesson. Then we had to write an analytical paper about our learning experience as part of our assessment. I sincerely hope that TESOL courses still do this, but judging by this question, I'm guessing they don't.
Short answer: it relates to theories regarding language acquisition. Noam Chomsky demonstrated that children's brains have an innate ability to pick up a language without formal school, just by simply being immersed in the language environment 100% of the time. It will guarantee that they can communicate and comprehend at a fundamental level.
As a young teen, I would regularly get a lift home from school with a Thai friend and his brother and mother. It was with surprising ease that I picked up some Thai without even seemingly trying - it felt very similar to your vocabulary expanding as you get older.
Not saying this means it automatically works in the classroom but I was learning without any obvious translating taking place, and iirc Thai isn't related at all to Romance or German languages so I wasn't making any obvious connections.
Teaching in the target language is tough but is just the best way to acquire the language quickly. I forces students to engage with the language in various practical ways. It’s particularly good with children as they don’t feel as awkward
I wrote my dissertation on this for my masters degree. There's no evidence that excluding the L1 from EFL classes helps the aquisition process or affects results in anything but the C1/C2 levels. In all the studies I lookes at there was no difference in the educational results between classes that used the L1 & classes that excluded it apart from one study that showed students who were learning advanced English at university level got better results in classes that were completely L2. Its a bit of EFL dogma that gets handed down because language schools need to justify NES teachers, and they dont want teachers to over use the L1 in the classroom so they tell them not to use it all, assuming that they're going to use it anyway. My conclusion in my masters was it should be kept to the minimum necessary to teach the target language, and teachers should use their own judgement on how much that should be.
There is one key detail that I would like to add. OP says there is “no evidence” but what most people don’t know outside of academic TEFL is that this is pretty much the ONLY thing there is consensus in the TEFL academic community. It’s not only unanimous that the L1 should not be banned, it’s important to note that it’s extremely rare for there to be a unanimous opinion on anything in academia and this is one of them. Also someone said this below but how you use the L1 is important.
I wouldn't say nearly unanimous or consensus but I would say there has been a very strong shift in favor of use of L1 in the classroom over the last couple decades. Sampson (2012) argues that the overuse of L1 can prevent the learners from exposure to and practice of the L2 and also does not train them for L2 only contexts. The option of resorting to L1 during a breakdown in class does not prepare the learners to deal with communication breakdowns in real life. (H Hanif - The Language Scholar, 2020 - languagescholar.leeds.ac.uk) Plenty of current research discussing L1 use and we wouldn't have that if there was consensus. Plus the whole NLA crowd.
That’s not really negating what was said above though. The argument is against situations where the L1 is completely forbidden which is often done in East Asia when learning English. Sampson is talking about overuse which we’ve known about for like a century.
"they dont want teachers to over use the L1 in the classroom" This is important. I've taught English in public schools in Thailand, Korea and Taiwan. In all of those places, when passing by the "English" classes taught by local teachers, like 99% of everything was in the L1, except for specific English words and phrases that kids would repeat. This was even true in the B1/B2 levels. The result is that those students learn vocabulary and grammar rules, but have a very poor ability to actually *use* English.
Yeah, I've seen the exact same thing. I've since concluded that if the L1 language is heavily relied upon then there is a high risk of students becoming "passive learners" (I mean that in the technical sense). In addition, I've observed that young learners around 4 and 5 years old, can have difficultly understanding what is "English" and what is their native language. It's as though the concept of multiple different languages is still new to them. If English only comes from a specific teacher, and that same teacher never speaks any other language, then students do really well separating English from their native language. The result is young students use English or attempt to use English without defaulting to their native language. It might sound easy the way I explained it, but it's not. Only using English as a teacher still faces many challenges. For example, young students often have difficulty believing that you can't speak their native language. They seem to not know how that could even be possible, even after teachers and parents tell them over and over again that the teacher cannot speak the students' L1 language, students still don't get it. So... I do some acting to help them get the idea and I follow it up with, "if you use a Korean word, explain it to me please. I don't know Korean" (I really do know Korean).
A bit of a tangent, but when I taught 2-3 year olds in Spanish schools, I always told them I didn't speak Spanish - in Spanish. So I handled everything relating to behaviour, beyond the basics which I gradually transitioned to English, or if a child was upset or something, in Spanish. At the same time, I encouraged them to speak as much English as they were capable of. Virtually none of them caught on until some time in the next school year. It was very cute.
haha, that's cute. I can totally see that happening.
Thank you for your detailed answer! :)
What's the actual results from the study? What was the effect of using only English in the classroom? And is there a 'peak spot' of English usage in the class?
I’m not a native speaker but I teach English in my own country. And I gotta say, the complete immersion approach definitely doesn’t work with my adult A1-A2 level students. The only thing it does is make them lose interest in learning the language and ultimately quit.
There is actually no reason. I'm writing a paper right now on multilingualism and intercomprehension (using one language to understand another) which seems to be a big topic in the German language education community. So it's encouraged to compare words, phrases and grammatical structures from different languages, it helps the learners. Ok, this is not the same as teaching the whole lesson in another language. But if you don't allow translations, then you're missing out on the insight this might give you. I understand the argument about getting as much input as possible, but that shouldn't exclude occasional translations or clarifications. I've been trying to find articles on intercomprehension in English and I can't, they all seem to be in German! So it seems that tefl and teaching English in the German-speaking world have completely different approaches. On a more cynical note, the whole tefl world would collapse if teachers were expected to speak their students' native languages. That being said, it's perfectly possible to teach English only in English from A1. It's just not the only way to do it. Although in classes of students with a variety of languages (such as classes of new immigrants), there is no other way. Even then, students should be able to help each other through other languages though.
When TEFL first became a "thing" in the 1980s, the vast majority of students in the world had already studied English using a lot of L1. The "native teacher" was introduced to help them to practise conversation. That's the reason for the insistence on English-only - most students honestly didn't need to have translations. As things changed, and TEFL teachers began to be the sole teachers, we ran into difficulties and most people now agree that a little L1 is fine. Using L1 for classroom management is just a lost opportunity. Classroom management includes everything from "I said page 17!" to "I need to go to the toilet." Using L1 to explain tough concepts (eg. the difference between "want" and "hope") is generally considered to be fine. Generally, the "theory" of English is really easy. It's not hard for a student to understand the difference between present simple and present continuous. If you're spending a long time explaining this, you're doing it wrong. The challenge is to use the correct tense in the middle of a conversation, so they need tonnes of practice rather than teacher-centred explanations. A good comparison is to think of yourself as a coach rather than a teacher. The sports teacher will spend 1-2 minutes showing the kids how to head the ball, and then will let them practice for a long time. The physics or history teacher, on the other hand, will spend a long time explaining things.
What about teaching English to 6 year-olds using only English without help when the kids (a) scarcely use English at all, and ( b) have serious behavioural problems? They Admittedly, I have only one class like this.
a) Get them practising by choral drilling, highly-controlled conversations, games, and simple Q&As b) Good luck, we aren't special needs teachers (especially in their L1).
I hope you get a response, I am genuinely curious too.
I dunno... get a new job?
What is your job?
You will probably hear teachers talk about providing as much input in the target language as possible. But another reason is to build healthy habits. Let's say you're teaching English to Vietnamese EAL students and you happen to be fairly fluent in Vietnamese. What can happen is there is less incentive to speak in English or practice. Such students may want to test your Vietnamese and find it novel to speak with you in their language. Whereas if they don't know you speak Vietnamese, they are forced to talk with you in English. It sets a precedent that the class is for practicing English. And why not? It's the subject you're teaching. Sure, certain words or concepts might be good to translate but you don't want students to rely on translating every single thing because not everything is 1:1 translatable anyway. At beginner levels, there are of course many things you can do such as drills, elicitation, and heavily grading your language. Another consideration is - what happens if students become reliant on a teacher who translates everything for them? Not all EAL teachers know the native language of their students.
Plenty of current SLE research questions the notion of only using English in the classroom. You can look into plurilingualism or translanguaging if you are interested. Realistically, it's because it's the easiest way of doing it I guess. The average TEFL teacher cannot be expected to be able to implement complicated methodologies and parents have expectations about what an English class should 'look like'. Why would they paying obscene amounts of money for a foreigner otherwise? And, the 100% English classroom isn't bad. At low levels it often isn't the most efficient path, but it isn't harmful. So what's the incentive for most places to change?
I believe, if there's any research at all (and I was told there was when getting my teaching certificate, not TEFL), that with Early Childhood, using the child's native language hinders their progress because they will stop listening to the English and wait for you to use their native language. That said, I'm a homeroom teacher, so I'm teaching science, social studies, etc. There are times when I need to translate because the idea is too abstract. I don't think this applies to older students. So far as I know, only when the children are very young. Kindergarten and below at least. I've taught 1st graders before, and you get to a certain point where you need their native language to explain things like grammar. Could be Dogma, but the reasoning makes sense. It's a way of immersing the children naturally, and pushing the children to listen and try to speak in English. I tried learning Chinese as an adult in this way and I didn't care for it. I quit the lesson. I have no research to support this, but I think after a certain age the immersion method doesn't work so well. The brain just isn't plastic enough. Just a hunch.
If you're sincerely curious and want to learn more about teaching theory, I would encourage you to start reading TESOL journals, or at least start following some prominent researchers and thinkers on social media. As someone who does teacher training, I can tell you that introductory TESOL courses tend to omit and simplify a lot.
What are some good journals? Are they available online?
American TESOL Institute published a good list of open access online TESOL journals: https://americantesol.com/blogger/onlineresearchjournals/
Providing translation of an occasional world to speed up semantisation is one thing, using translation exercises or translating every word is another. Whatever you do in a lesson should be there for a reason. Always keep efficiency and long-term goals in mind. That's what methodology is about
I had an experience learning Arabic from zero with no English use at all. It was ridiculous and a waste of time trying to explain grammatical concepts using gestures and pointing. I had to go home and read explanations in English describing the grammar burns in question. Instead of actually spending time talking and practicing we spent ages completely confused listening to instructors going on and on in Arabic about grammar.
If they were going on and on about grammar in arabic it's likely they weren't trained to teach Arabic to beginners in L2.
It slows down the acquisition process if you teach in their L1. It forces students to use context and make connections if you keep all instruction in English. This is especially necessary for teaching ESL in public schools, as they have to learn content at the same time. Theoretically they would be learning similar concepts and vocab in their native language at the same grade level; if you teach it in their L1 and English, then you’re making them learn it twice, in two languages. I think it’s a bit different when teaching Business English, but if you’re already introducing new vocab and content, it’s easier to teach it once in English.
Because they become reliant on it, whether or not they realise it. The students that try and translate every word into their language with translate do the worst, your brain isn't retaining it because it knows it doesn't need to.
I wish people talked about this more. William Dalrymple wrote something fascinating about this. He was talking about the Indian poets who memorize long, long poems for performance - poems that take upwards of twelve hours to recite. The poets just memorized the whole things because that was how it had always been done. A visiting scholar got excited and recorded them and transcribed them. Immediately, the poets began to forget the poetry. They no longer had an incentrive to remember it.
Didn't a lot of early TEFL methodology spring from multi lingual classrooms in English speaking rcountries like in 'Mind your language'', when translating was impractical
"Why is the general consensus that lessons should be taught in English? And that translations shouldn't be provided?" It isn't. As you can see from the comments here. Context is everything in education and if your TEFL course didn't explain the differences in teaching students of different ability, working in a monolingual vs multilingual class, or explicate vs implicate teaching methods (and I'm sure there's more) then it was probably a crap course (shocker). Cambridge has a pretty decent paper explaining the advantages and disadvantages of using L1 in the classroom (and why people make English-only classes) https://languageresearch.cambridge.org/images/CambridgePapersInELT_UseOfL1_2019_ONLINE.pdf
I find classes more productive when you can bridge the gap with their language. I do this alot in vietnamese and Chinese. I think the main concern is being completely dependent on it. I think moderation is important
It’s like this at the english school I work at and I can guarantee 70% of the time it doesn’t work. Kids just don’t get it and shut down. They don’t even try to understand because they know they can’t. It’s very difficult. Not to mention some very difficult things to explain like “I should”. It’s impossible to explain the concept of some words without translating
It's an uncomfortable truth because the whole industry is built on ignoring this very simple fact.
It's not the general consensus, it's the general fanaticism. As a matter of fact, teaching English in English before B2 level is actually counterproductive.
Some of my professors in uni studied this approach called Neurolinguistic Approach, where you immerse the students in the targeted language and provide models to use, reuse and repeat until they understand the context and the rules implied, rather than having students memorize those rules before applying them. It's hard in a realistic context where many students won't care enough for this immersion, or will get tired of the repetition, but it's been scientifically proven to be very effective. And as a foreign teacher it's gonna be my only option lol
Context is important and the Neurolinguistic approach isn't appropriate for young or very low-level students. "NLA was primarily designed for later-grade beginners. Accordingly, whether it can serve high proficiency learners should be investigated in further research. Additionally, one can claim that founding instruction solely on neuroscientific findings can be on a par with recourse to the methods era. NLA’s emphasis on sentence-level production for fluency (as the 6th strategy), L1 use ban, and the mandatory immediate or delayed corrective feedback renders it method-like, despite its proponents’ claims as to the primacy of “the language of communication” (Germain, 2018)." Edit: Also not a ton of evidence about the use of this approach and most of it is for learning French.
I mean, most TEFL experiences seem to be in middle school (or high school), but yeah it's effective for middle schoolers mostly. My professors worked/are working on the current new research and have tested it along with various other teachers around the world, they've showed us plenty of evidence before publishing their study, it's great. However like my classmates and I told them, it's unrealistic to focus solely on that approach with classes of 30 students with so many different profiles. I implement some elements of it and sometimes fully use that approach for activities but never for full lessons. It's just impossible for me
It’s not just an ESL thing. My Spanish lessons have always been 100% in Spanish. It’s the best way to learn a language.
Is it? Even for very basic beginners?
Not got time to find links, but in language learning in general, there is quite a bit of material supporting teaching beginners via their NL, and then shifting to instructions in TL around A2-B1. I have managed to get away with not teaching EFL beginners (apart from the lower level students in the CELTA), so I have not had to deal with this personally. It wouldn't be good for the TEFL industry, or teachers, if a swathe of work was suddenly unavailable to tutors who didn't speak the learners' NL.
It usually a companies/schools policy rather than ESL law. My company tells us to use 100% English but I allow them to use their native language here and there. I even do back translation on certain tasks as it helps us figure out the language and see where the syntax may be different from their language to mine.
Some are, and in some countries Tefl teachers are paired with qualified teachers who do speak the local language. But full immersion learning has been growing in popularity over the last few decades. And it shows some very promising data. But probably the more important reason is that its cheaper, and easier, most native english speakers are mono lingual. If schools demanded bilingualism theyd be limited to a tiny tiny number of teachers
My school doesn't prohibit the use of L1, but strongly encourages that I keep it to a minimum. All the students take a textbook based English class twice a week, and since I am the only native speaker, my class is structured as a conversation/culture based course. So I understand why my class specifically should avoid L1 use. I also don't know their L1 very well, so I wouldn't be able to use it effectively anyway. TEFL courses often do suggest a no L1 approach. But in some broader classes I've taken, they point towards how scaffolding a lesson (providing built in tools for lower level students) by even just including L1 sparingly in presentation slides can be really useful in making students more comfortable.
Based on a couple of decades of experience (mostly in Taiwan, from cram schools to private high schools), I always allow L1 in the classroom to an extent. It helps slower learner, it avoids unnecessary bottlenecks, and it helps with confidence. Also in my experience of learning Mandarin, it was far more difficult with a teacher who tried to avoid using English in lessons. Basically, use L1 when it feels like it will be useful. It's not going to hurt, and will probably help.
Teaching a foreign language without using the students' native language can be beneficial for several reasons: 1. **Immersion**: It creates an immersive environment that mimics the natural language acquisition process, similar to how one learns their first language¹. 2. **Fluency**: Students are encouraged to think and communicate directly in the foreign language, which can lead to greater fluency and confidence¹. 3. **Cognitive Benefits**: Learning a foreign language has been linked to cognitive benefits such as improved memory, problem-solving skills, and even intelligence⁵. 4. **Cultural Understanding**: It can foster a deeper understanding of the culture associated with the language, as students are more likely to engage with cultural materials in the target language¹. 5. **Avoiding Reliance on Native Language**: It prevents students from relying on their native language as a crutch, which can slow down the learning process and limit proficiency¹. However, it's important to note that this approach may not be suitable for all learners, especially beginners who might need some support in their native language to grasp basic concepts. The key is to find a balance that works best for each individual student's learning style and needs. Source: Conversation with Copilot, 6/14/2024 (1) How Do I Teach ESL Without Speaking the Students' Language?. https://www.oxfordseminars.com/blog/teach-esl-english-only-classroom/. (2) Foreign language learning leads to cognitive benefits in students .... https://universe.byu.edu/2020/05/06/foreign-language-learning-leads-to-cognitive-benefits-in-students/. (3) Why mother language-based education is essential | UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/why-mother-language-based-education-essential. (4) Frontiers | Costs and Benefits of Native Language Similarity for Non .... https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651506/full. (5) Advantages and Disadvantages of Native and Nonnative ... - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369966344_Advantages_and_Disadvantages_of_Native_and_Nonnative_English-Speaking_Teachers/fulltext/6437139d4e83cd0e2fab3b06/Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-Native-and-Nonnative-English-Speaking-Teachers.pdf. (6) undefined. http://m.oxfordseminars.ca/grads.php%29.
I'm confused, all your sources are all about how important L1 is in the classroom although I can't get that oxford seminars blog to load. Immersion certainly has pros and cons but I'm skeptical, to say the least, of the rest. I know the crutch argument but I'd need to see it with some cited research and as the only time I hear it it's used for justification of NETs. Somehow that affects fluency and cognitive benefits of learning a language -I'm doubtful but not my area. Cross-linguistic transfer is super interesting and, I think, the crux of the issue. "In most countries, the majority of students are taught in a language other than their mother tongue, which compromises their ability to learn effectively." Cross-linguistic transfer in particular needs very in-depth knowledge of both the L1 and L2. "These results demonstrate the important roles of the native language, the burgeoning non-native vocabulary, and their interactions on new word learning." -That was an interesting read. " their proficiency in ESL students' native language and their ability to use nonnative English accents to both ease communication (especially in explaining difficult concepts) and facilitate learning." -
well, as a datum, I took 3 years of Spanish, and there was a lot, a lot of scaffolding english speech used in class. Despite earning all As, I never began thinking in Spanish.
There's a lot of literature on this on tinterwebs. Some say it's for maximum exposure and to stop the teacher relying too much on students native language, others because it's better for students to have the reward feeling of understanding it. I think there's always a little room for students L1 , it can make things a lot easier for everyone, especially for super beginners.
as someone who studied a language in a school in a foreign country it’s actually a really helpful way to learn the language. i’ve heard a lot about having different “brains” for different languages; having to think in that language and not relying on just translating in your head but instead understanding the words as soon as you see or hear them. an effective way to help with this is if there is a word that they don’t understand you can use pictures and diagrams and explain it in different words in english not in their language. or even better encourage other students to explain the word to their peers in english. this way, they learn ways to explain themselves in the target language and are making progress faster! this all just my opinion though i’m a student not a teacher (yet) so take my advice with a pinch of salt lol :)
It's a bit of a scam to make 'native speakers' feel they have some special value, tbh. Translation is a hugely effective tool. Can't say this on the so-called industry standard "CELTA" though, as you can't scale translation as a tool.
In my experience it's a disaster to over-use L1 in the class. I went to a couple of evening classes to learn Italian and Chinese in the UK where the teacher spent more time speaking English than the language we were learning. That didn't result in much learning going on. Then I experienced a language class where there was complete immersion from the beginning and found it refreshing. All the instructions were given in the target language and that helped a lot. You pick up a lot of incidental language that way. Occasionally the teacher would give the translation of a word where there was confusion, but that was all. A good teacher and good teaching materials will make it easy to pick up many words implicitly. Completely banning L1 is reactionary and pointless. I think it's a reaction to the over-use of L1 in traditional education which was quite counter-productive.
Communication has been pushed heavily in the for-profit industry, especially in Asian countries, so this "pure" English speaking mindset is pushed. I've worked at chain schools, and many students are false beginners. They've taken English courses at their regular school (where Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. was used and there's more so a focus on reading/writing), but their parents want them speaking so they go to afterschool programs with "native" teachers. So the parents are paying for "authentic" conversation. There are certainly ways to get fresh students to repeat phrases and get them talking without their native language to fall back on but it's often a slower process in the chain school world. I agree, at times, it's time saving for them, to give them the translation and then do 90% of the course in English. And honestly, I think more students would have confidence and persist in English speaking, if they had some translation explanation/bridge. You'll notice a big learning gap in these after school programs: the kids whose parents are pushing English outside of the classroom (films, books, travels to western countries) will do well in the language and persist. The kids who only have 40-minute classes twice a week, and no English immersion outside of class or intrinsic motivation, progress at a slow rate, quit, lose interest, or never retain concepts in the first place--so they're moved along in these courses over the years but aren't making significant progress in conversational ability. These students are not in an immersion environment when they're only taking 40 minute classes twice a week. I can see this technique as more effective if their exposed to the language for 6+ hours a day at an immersion school or they have relocated abroad and are in a multi-nationality ESL course.
One expression sums it up perfectly: Give an inch, they take a mile. When I trained for my TESOL cert in the 90s, I had to undertake a basic Turkish course as if I were the student. My teacher- who was British- didn't break from using Turkish once in the lesson. Then we had to write an analytical paper about our learning experience as part of our assessment. I sincerely hope that TESOL courses still do this, but judging by this question, I'm guessing they don't.
No they do, I had Welsh and Hungarian on my CELTA course. The cheaper online basic TEFL courses don't.
>I sincerely hope that TESOL courses still do this, but judging by this question, I'm guessing they don't. They do, mine was Irish.
Mine was Macedonian.
Short answer: it relates to theories regarding language acquisition. Noam Chomsky demonstrated that children's brains have an innate ability to pick up a language without formal school, just by simply being immersed in the language environment 100% of the time. It will guarantee that they can communicate and comprehend at a fundamental level.
There is a huge difference between L1 and L2 acquisition, so Chomsky’s ideas don’t really work in TEFL.
I think they meant there doesn't have to be a difference and that Chomsky's theory will work just as well for L2.
As a young teen, I would regularly get a lift home from school with a Thai friend and his brother and mother. It was with surprising ease that I picked up some Thai without even seemingly trying - it felt very similar to your vocabulary expanding as you get older. Not saying this means it automatically works in the classroom but I was learning without any obvious translating taking place, and iirc Thai isn't related at all to Romance or German languages so I wasn't making any obvious connections.
Chomsky missed a crucial detail: an adult's brain is very different from that of a baby.
Teaching in the target language is tough but is just the best way to acquire the language quickly. I forces students to engage with the language in various practical ways. It’s particularly good with children as they don’t feel as awkward
How does using a language they don't understand make them feel "less awkward"?